On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 5:10 PM Thomas Bertschinger <tahbertschinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu Sep 11, 2025 at 6:39 AM MDT, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 2:29 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 03:49:27PM -0600, Thomas Bertschinger wrote: > >> > This is to support using open_by_handle_at(2) via io_uring. It is useful > >> > for io_uring to request that opening a file via handle be completed > >> > using only cached data, or fail with -EAGAIN if that is not possible. > >> > > >> > The signature of xfs_nfs_get_inode() is extended with a new flags > >> > argument that allows callers to specify XFS_IGET_INCORE. > >> > > >> > That flag is set when the VFS passes the FILEID_CACHED flag via the > >> > fileid_type argument. > >> > >> Please post the entire series to all list. No one has any idea what your > >> magic new flag does without seeing all the patches. > >> > > > > Might as well re-post your entire v2 patches with v2 subjects and > > cc xfs list. > > > > Thanks, > > Amir. > > > Thanks for the advice, sorry for messing up the procedure... > > Since there are a few quick fixups I can make, I may go straight to > sending v3 with the correct subject and cc. Any reason for me to not do > that -- is it preferable to resend v2 right away with no changes? No worries. v3 is fine. But maybe give it a day or two for other people to comment on v2 before posting v3. Some people may even be mid review of v2 and that can be a bit annoying to get v3 while in the middle of review of v2. Thanks, Amir.
